I am honoured to rise here this evening to take part in the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the free trade agreement between our government and the European Union, and specifically the effects it will have on the agriculture sector.

I want to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, the NDP's deputy agriculture critic, for moving this motion, letting the House have a chance to talk about our government's free trade agreement with the European Union. As I said on October 31, there is a lot of interest on our side of the House.

I also want to thank our agriculture committee for undertaking its study on the free trade agreement with the European Union and its impact on Canada's agricultural sector. The committee initiated this study last fall, after the agreement in principle was concluded in October 2013. As noted on page two of the report, the particulars of the final agreement were still being negotiated during the committee's study. However, after the committee's work wrapped up and its report was tabled, those negotiations were finally finished, and we now have a detailed legal text available for members and all Canadians to study and assess.

Before the last election, and during the midst of these trade negotiations, I had the great honour and privilege of serving as Canada's Minister of International Trade. In that role, I had the opportunity to meet with various Canadians, those with a real, tangible interest in getting a free trade agreement signed, sealed, and delivered. One segment of the Canadian economy that was among the keenest to see action was the agricultural sector.

I am pleased to say that our Conservative government has delivered. This free trade agreement would give new market access in Europe for key Canadian agricultural exports of beef, pork, and even bison. Specifically, there would be new duty-free access for up to 80,000 tons of pork, 65,000 tons of beef, and 3,000 tons of bison every year. I could go on, but suffice it to say that the agriculture industry estimates that the Canada–Europe free trade agreement would achieve over $1.5 billion of new exports for Canadian farmers every single year. While that would be a vital boost for our economy, it is just one of the components of Canadian economic growth, over $12 billion a year some estimates say, that would be realized by the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

This opening for Canadian exporters would be accentuated by, as page three of the report notes, the fact that Canada would be the first large economy with free trade agreements with both the United States and the European Union. In fact, we would be the only major developed economy in the world with such access. For investors looking to build a facility to create jobs and to export both to the U.S.A. and Europe, Canada would be the one place to go in the developed economies if they were looking for a place to locate. This would be a major gain for Canada, the place for job creation and long-term prosperity. That being said about manufacturing and similar kinds of activities, let me return to agriculture, the subject of this report.

Our agri-food industry will benefit from an incredible opportunity and enjoy a leg up on its competitors around the world. It is no wonder that the committee recognized this and made a recommendation that states that approving the agreement quickly will expedite the economic benefits for Canada.

This free trade agreement, with our second-largest trading partner and the world's largest economy, represents the greatest single boost for the Canadian economy since the previous Conservative government reached a free trade agreement with the United States. What is more is that this free trade agreement with the European Union is historic in its reach. It is Canada's most ambitious trade initiative, broader in scope and deeper in ambition than the Canada–United States free trade agreement or the North American free trade agreement.

As ambitious as the negotiations with the EU were, our Conservative government continued to defend Canada's supply management system, and I am pleased to say that we succeeded in that aim. Under the Canada–Europe free trade agreement, the three pillars of our domestic supply management system would remain intact.

No only did we defend supply management, as the committee recommended in its report, but we also opened new trade markets for the products of these sectors.

Canadian dairy farmers would, for example, gain, through the agreement, unlimited access for their products on European shelves. The excellent balance we have achieved for Canada's agricultural sectors is a major component of what makes this free trade agreement the masterpiece it is for our economy's growth.

The benefits to be enjoyed by agricultural exporters will go a long way toward making free trade with Europe the great success that I know it will be. Farmers, and Canadians generally, recognize this free trade agreement for the success that it is and the opportunity it represents.

The general consensus, which now prevails, that free trade is a good thing emerged following the very exciting election of 1988, when Canadians were called to the ballot box over the issue. In the early 1980s, when I was in university, free trade was a very hot issue. The consensus of the media, academics, Liberals, and socialists was that free trade was a terrible thing and a bad thing for Canada. The debate that went on through those years culminated in that gripping election of 1988.

I remember that campaign well. Those of us at the time had become accustomed to campaigns being about music, who had the best song, or who had the best looking leader. It was the first election I remember in my lifetime so focused on policy, and in that particular case, on one issue, and in fact, where the debate went back and forth, as did the lead through the election. Of course, they were vigorous debates.

Over time, having been defeated in that election and having seen the tremendous benefits of free trade, the Liberals have come around to supporting free trade, but the New Democratic Party still, reliably, has opposed free trade bills. However, the consensus for free trade continues to grow, so much so that this year, we saw a very fascinating event: the NDP actually backing one of the many free trade agreements we have brought forward in bills. I bet my New Democratic classmates from a quarter-century ago would have laughed in my face had I told them that this would ever happen.

Of course, we are awaiting the NDP view on this agriculture committee report and on this free trade agreement, but we will soon hear from an NDP MP in this debate. Farmers and agricultural exporters are certainly waiting to hear.

In closing, I want to extend my thanks to my counterpart, the NDP House leader, because it is through his program of daily concurrence motions this autumn that MPs have this opportunity to speak and vote on the issues raised in this report and on the exciting trade agreement with the European Union, which the agriculture committee studied.

I personally take great pride in this. When I was trade minister, as I said, my number one priority was seeing progress on this. I am very pleased that my successor has brought it to a satisfactory conclusion, and I look forward tremendously to the benefits to all Canadians. With the people-to-people links we have between Europe and Canada, the opportunities are tremendous. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say, but more importantly, I look forward to all this free trade agreement will mean for the creation of growth, long-term prosperity, and jobs well into the future for our country.

Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader tried to point out, New Democrats have opposed some of the bad trade deals that have been brought forward in the past, and we have supported good ones, ones that have actually been fairly negotiated. That is no secret to the government House leader.

New Democrats are not knee-jerk free trade apologists. We take a balanced approach on trade, which means that we read through the information that is available to us. We read through the actual agreements. We read through the enabling legislation. We ask the government tough questions about the kinds of transition measures it puts in place, and often, in the past, the government has simply come up empty-handed in terms of answering the tough questions we have asked.

We have seen growth in trade worldwide, and particularly, more and more, a fair trade agenda, where countries in South America and Europe, et cetera, have actually taken a different approach than the government in terms of trade structuring. They have actually put into place measures that are much more balanced.

My question to the government House leader is very simple. In terms of the Korea trade deal, the Conservatives actually got the investor state mechanisms right. Why do they not try to emulate some of the best trade measures that are taken by progressive countries around the world and have clarity and transparency around negotiations and real consultations with people who are affected, including Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, the negotiation of the Canada-European Union free trade agreement was one of the most fascinating ones for Canada because of the unprecedented extent of consultation and transparency. In fact, it was so transparent that people would look at the issues being discussed and claim that one side's negotiating position, because it was public, was already agreed to, which, of course, was never the case.

One of the things that was remarkable about those negotiations was that the provinces, which are critical to making it an agreement of such depth and breadth, were actually at the table as negotiating partners with a say on the issues that were of relevance to them. Every single provincial government was there advocating its case and every single province agreed that this agreement represented the best interests of the provincial economy and the economy of Canada as a whole. For a while, Newfoundland and Labrador held out, but in the end, it came to the table.

That is why this was a phenomenal agreement in how it was negotiated. I know that when I was trade minister, I was in numerous consultations, whether it was discussions with the interested sectors or discussions with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for example, and all kinds of municipal groups. All the people who had interests were actively involved at every step, and I credit our negotiators for the tremendous work they did.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the Liberals and socialists the minister tried to target in his remarks, which I did not think was a very fair comment, I am proud of being a Liberal, and I am proud of being seen as a little bit socialist from time to time.

The bill has several shortcomings. The previous speaker mentioned one, and that is that there really was no consultation, other than with the provinces, which were basically sworn to secrecy. I spoke to many of the negotiators. There was really no consultation on an actual text that we could see, even an early draft, to give the public some confidence in where the government was going and the ability to make some suggestions. The provinces are in a different position than ordinary citizens. I think that was a shortcoming.

The problem now is that we are basically dealing with a package that is a fait accompli. It is a vote up or a vote down, rather than looking at some of the aspects of the agreement.

I have two questions. One question is on supply management, which has been compromised in this deal. I will give the government some credit. It did not undermine the principles, but it provided greater access, which will mean less market for Canadian producers. Can the government spokesman provide us with what the compensation would be for that industry? The Conservatives claimed that there would be some. What will that be?

Second, on investor state provisions, there are some concerns. What protections do Canadians have from the protection that is allowed under this agreement for investors who invest in this country so that if the government makes a policy change, we have to make a payment to them for future lost profits? That has already happened before. That takes away some of our sovereignty as a government in this country. What protections is the government putting in the bill to ensure that we are protecting future governments?

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear my friend from the Liberal Party reveal that perhaps there is no unity in the Liberal Party after all. Perhaps there are some good old troopers still fighting for the Canadian nationalist ways of the 1960s and still resisting free trade. I am glad to hear that there is no unity in the Liberal Party and that there are still people who are opposed to free trade, because that makes me fondly remember those great debates, which I think were some of the greatest times in Canada. It was a time when Canadians had clear choices, as I think they will again in the future, and perhaps this agreement will provide that opportunity.

In terms of supply management, I would say that we have quite clearly defended it through free trade agreements with literally dozens and dozens of countries. At every step of the way, we have successfully defended the system of supply management.

In terms of the changes in the quotas that would be allowed into Canada at lower tariffs or tariff free, those changes actually reflect less than the projected growth in the market in Canada over the same period of time. Therefore, there should actually be no impact on the supply managed sector, and it should enjoy continued growth, thanks to supply management.

We made a commitment that in the unlikely event that they do not see continued success and they suffer a negative impact, we will protect them. It is a fairly significant level of protection that we do not see too many countries offer when they enter into free trade agreements. We have done that with the supply managed sectors, and we were proud to do that. However, we are confident that we will not ever have to pay it out, because we know that our supply managed sectors are so successful and continue to do very well. In fact, we have secured for them opportunities through access to markets in Europe through this agreement.

In terms of protecting investors, I think anyone who is a Canadian investor, anyone who is doing business abroad, understands the importance of that, because guess what? We have the best rule of law in the world for defending people's property rights, whether they are from this country or not, when they are doing business here.

We do not always enjoy peer reciprocity in these matters from other countries. In fact, Canadians normally find it risky to do business abroad. If we want Canadians to do business abroad, create job opportunities here, export more, invest elsewhere, and grow Canadian prosperity by opening up to the world, which is something Liberals used to believe in, but not this member apparently, then we also have to get them some measure of protection, the same kind of protection other countries get here in Canada, and that is what this agreement delivers.

Pierre LemieuxConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the committee conducted a thorough study of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, as well as the very positive economic impact it will have on Canada's agricultural sector.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard from many witnesses who painted a complete picture of agriculture in Canada and who said they welcome the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, especially considering the new opportunities it will provide to our agriculture sector.

The committee presented the House with an exhaustive report on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement that included five major recommendations.

My comments will touch on the second recommendation, which reads as follows:

...that the Government of Canada continue its strong defence of supply-management to promote sustained growth and profitability in the supply-managed sectors of the economy.

Canadian dairy and farm producers are innovative and supply consumers every day. These industries contribute over $30 billion to the Canadian economy, in both rural and urban areas.

These industries also create thousands of jobs in Canada and help keep the economy strong and stable.

Supply management is vital to thousands of family farms in Canada, and it has served the interests of Canadian farmers, processors and consumers very well for more than 40 years. That is why the government continues to support the current supply management system.

However, the NDP did not even mention the issue of supply management in its 2011 election campaign. In fact, the NDP does not seem to know that agriculture and farmers are the main engines of the Canadian economy.

Yesterday, the NDP announced that it would again vote against the fundamental interests of producers, especially those of the Quebec producers they represent, by voting against Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, and the access it will provide to seed technologies.

Our government supports supply management. We have always supported supply management, and we will continue to support supply management. At the same time, our government continues to pursue extensive international trade initiatives. This is vital to Canada's exporting farmers, who depend on trade and a strong Canadian economy.

Over the past nine years, we have concluded 10 free trade agreements that have facilitated trade with more than 40 countries. Our government has negotiated and signed these free trade agreements, all the while maintaining Canada's supply management system.

In fact in 2013, under our Conservative government, we reached over $50 billion in export trade deals with our agriculture and food industry. A recent Farm Credit Canada report highlighted Canada's agricultural exports as accounting for 30% of GDP, the second largest contributor to Canada's economic growth.

It is clear that our free trade negotiations and our upholding of supply management benefit the economy and strengthen our agricultural industry. The opposition, however, has opposed almost every initiative we have brought forward to strengthen trade and increase Canadian exports.

The NDP members have even said that, if given the chance, they promise to repeal international trade agreements to which Canada is a party. Of course, they will never be given that chance.

Farmers across the country, particularly those in the Quebec NDP ridings, support free trade because it is good for agriculture, good for Canada, and good for our economy.

The comprehensive economic and trade agreement is the most ambitious trade agreement since the North American Free Trade Agreement. With these two free trade agreements, Canada would be one of the few countries in the world to have preferential access to the world's two largest economies. These economies account for approximately 800 million of the world's most affluent customers.

The Canada-EU trade agreement would allow Canadian exports to benefit from duty-free access into the EU market. This would make Canadian products more competitive and provide our exporters with a significant advantage over their competitors.

The Canada-EU trade agreement trade agreement has been welcomed by many in the agricultural industry. Wally Smith, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada said:

We have some of the finest and best artisanal cheese in the world, without a doubt, and we can compete with anyone in the world....

Once ratified and implemented, CETA will provide new duty-free access for 64,950 tonnes of Canadian beef - 50,000 tonnes of which is new quota - totally[sic] nearly $600 million annually.

The Canada-EU trade agreement is now signed, and stakeholders across Canada are delighted; yet the NDP still will not say if it agrees with stakeholders, even its own stakeholders, and supports this agreement as signed.

It is most regrettable, even shameful, when a political party does not even listen to its own stakeholders.

Mr. Jim Laws, executive director of the Canadian Meat Council, summed up the benefits best when he said:

CETA will result in higher incomes for farmers, increased competitiveness for processors, more job opportunities for workers, greater choice for consumers, and higher tax revenues for municipalities.

As a result of the government's consultations with many stakeholders across Canada, we know that farmers, dairy producers, provincial producers and associations, cheese producers and importers and the provincial governments may have concerns about the Canada-EU trade agreement.

The government will keep the promises it made to dairy farmers in the event that their productivity is negatively affected by the Canada-EU agreement.

As the Prime Minister said in October 2013, the federal government is firmly committed to closely monitoring the potential effects of the agreement. We could, if necessary, provide compensation if the agreement were detrimental to farmers.

Furthermore, under the terms of the Canada-EU trade agreement, Canada's supply management system will remain strong. The three pillars of the national supply management system—production control, import controls and price controls—are still in place and will remain in place.

Canadian farmers want to be competitive. Quebec farmers also want to be competitive. How would the NDP explain to the farmers in their ridings who are in favour of this agreement that they will not support the Canada-EU trade agreement?

Once again the NDP members are not listening to those they represent. They have pro-export and pro-trade stakeholders who want the NDP to support this agreement. The time is now for the NDP to listen to farmers, listen to their stakeholders, listen to their constituents, and vote in favour of the Canada-EU trade agreement.

Canadian farmers need a final answer from the NDP. Will it support the text of this trade agreement or not?

I have talked about how this agreement is supported by farmers and how supply management would remain intact with this agreement. We have discussed this at the agriculture committee and in this House, yet the NDP cannot make up its mind if it supports free trade and supply management.

I encourage all members of this House, particularly those of the NDP, to support this agreement and supply management.

That is why I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: "the First Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented to the House on Thursday, March 27, 2014, be not now concurred in but that, in view of the subsequent conclusion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and its final text having been published, the Report be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Agreement represents an appropriate balance between creating opportunities for agricultural and food exporters and maintaining the system of supply management and, therefore, Canada's free trade agreement with the European Union should be implemented as negotiated.".

Mr. Speaker, I look to you for direction first. Is the question directed at the motion or directed at the parliamentary secretary and his overview? I recognize you always give us leeway, but I want to be—

The debate henceforth will be on the amendment. Obviously given the nature of the amendment and the original motion, there is going to be a great deal of leeway in addressing comments to both the main motion and the amendment. The debate is on the amendment. The questions can be on either.

I am surprised that my good friend the parliamentary secretary would want to revisit all of this.

The specific instruction says that one should vote for something at committee before it actually comes before the House of Commons, which is really quite strange. The hands of committee members would be bound by saying that they must vote for this that says one shall do this, but yet it is not here. There is no bill here, unless the House leader intends to bring one forward tomorrow that we do not know about. The CETA bill is not before us in the House, so how can it go back to the committee with an instruction that says thou shall go study it with the new pieces?

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that there are pieces we did not see before. As the House leader quite eloquently said, this committee report was written prior to all of the details coming out. The problem is that there is no legislation here from the government. If my memory serves me correctly, there is no agreement from the other parties across the Atlantic that they have accepted the whole thing yet, because a lot of countries have to vote on it and get it translated.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell me why the government would bind the hands of not only government members but the opposition as well, by saying that we must vote for this before we even know what we are voting for? Are we expected to agree on something, but we do not know what it is, because we really like it a lot or because the government likes it a lot? This reminds me of the leader of the third party, who jumped up and said he was in favour of it before he had actually read it.

If memory serves me right, the Conservative government always told us that we should not say things about things we do not yet know, and yet the government is asking us as a committee to vote in a way that will bind us. I am not sure how one binds oneself to a committee anyway. I suppose we could support the committee's report. Does that mean the government whip would tell us how to vote when the government brings in CETA? I do not think so.

I am not quite sure why the parliamentary secretary would decide to do it in that direction. If he wants to bring it back for study, why not just bring it back as an open discussion? Surely that is what—

Mr. Speaker, you have been very generous with the member, but unfortunately he was very confused in his question.

The motion is about sending the report back to committee and having the report acknowledge the fact that the text from the agreement has been finalized and is now public and that the House should support both the free trade agreement and supply management.

Why did I bring this up? I brought it up because the NDP continues to equivocate. Those members have only supported a single free trade agreement among all the free trade agreements we have brought forward. We are asking them if they support CETA and all the benefits it would bring to Canadian agriculture or not. Let us see how they vote on this motion and how they vote on the final report at committee when the committee looks at what the House is sending back to it, encouraging it to recognize the fact that the final text has been negotiated and has been made public, and that the agreement actually advances the best interests of Canada, including agriculture, and it protects supply management.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland was making so much sense that I almost want to give him some of my time, but I will not.

The parliamentary secretary talked a lot about support for supply management. I guess it depends on how one defines support. Giving access to the Europeans to our market beyond what access we get into their market is not support. The fact of the matter is that our market will shrink, and it will have an impact on our “values” and on the available market for Canadian producers. That is the reality.

My other question for the parliamentary secretary relates to markets opening up in Europe for non-hormone fed beef. If that is the European policy then that is fine, but our problem is that we had a quota that we could access for beef before and we never filled that quota. In order to make this agreement work, is the government willing to invest in the kind of infrastructure that is needed, such as a plant in Canada that would slaughter and ship that kind of beef? We can do it, but we need a plant structure and infrastructure to access the European market. Would the government be there in that way for producers?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to supply management, our government strongly defends it, as I mentioned. I would remind the member that it was our Conservative government, not the past Liberal government, that brought in cheese compositional standards to the great benefit of both consumers and supply management farmers.

I would also remind the member that we recently closed a loophole on the border concerning pizza kits. This was a top concern of dairy farmers. Again, our government acted on that issue.

I do not know why the member has no confidence in our dairy farmers or cheese producers. I will read another quote from Wally Smith, the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

He said:

We have some of the finest and best artisanal cheese in the world, without a doubt, and we can compete with anyone in the world....

Why does the member undermine our dairy producers and cheese producers by saying that they cannot compete?

The last thing that I will say is about the beef market. This is a tremendous opportunity for beef farmers and for our beef processing plants. We work very closely with our stakeholders. We consult very closely. Industry is also interested in making this work, and industry has guaranteed us that it will make this work. It asked for extra access; it is getting extra access. It is new, exciting access for this sector, and it is going to exploit it to its full capacity.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the parliamentary secretary, I almost find myself almost at a loss for words. That is hard for the House to believe, and to be truthful, I think I can find my voice.

As the House leader quite correctly said in one of the few things he said that actually was correct, we did not have all of the details to study this matter. At committee we questioned why we were studying this when we did not even know what it was. We only knew that it was a CETA agreement and that we needed more details with respect to it so that we could pose questions to the folks who came before us from the agriculture sector. They included primary producers, processors, and the retail sector. There was a comprehensive number of witnesses, and I felt that there was a reasonable cross-section of folks who came before us to tell us what it was.

However, when we asked them specifically if they really knew what it was, the answer was that they thought so. Many had been at the table, but some had not. There was a sense that there might be some things they could win and that maybe there were not, but most said that overall they thought it was a good deal. The parliamentary secretary said that. The problem was whether they would be able to take advantage of those good things.

Unfortunately, one of the things missing in this report was the numbers. We talked about a nice big number—I think it was $2.4 billion—which is the value of wheat exports being sent to the EU now in the agriculture sector, but there is no number in here as to what the EU sends to us in the agriculture sector, which is actually greater than $2.4 billion. Even after we add in the numbers that the government talks about in this report—and the agriculture committee heard from different people—and add that number to the $2.4 billion, it is still less than what the EU ships here, so it is not as if we come out a winner over the EU. We can certainly say that we have come up, and there is no question about that. We have a cumulative number that is higher, and the EU got some extra stuff.

I agree with what my friend from Malpeque said when he talked about supply management. The government did not destroy the three pillars of supply management. Wally Smith, the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada at that time, was quite clear about that. He said that it had not.

However, this is an overgrown mouse that is chewing away at supply management, especially the cheese section. That is what has happened, to the tune of millions of dollars.

My good friend, the deputy critic for agriculture for our party, comes from a great riding I can never pronounce because it always escapes me. I sit on the agriculture committee, and she does a wonderful job. It was quite clear in the motion that she presented to the House that we need to have some sort of transition plan for cheese producers.

If I remember, I think the government supported that idea. I do not think it has done much with it yet, but it did support it. It will be interesting to see what it does with that and if it actually works that through. It even agreed that there is an impact; otherwise, why would anyone support a motion for a transition program for a group of producers if we thought they were going to be winners? This government says it does not give away something for nothing, so it would not give money to farmers, or pretend to, if it did not think that somehow there was a loser.

That is what is in this agreement. That is what the report highlighted. That is why we added no dissenting report here. We added a supplementary piece because we heard from our friends in the agriculture sector, who said that there were opportunities for them.

As we have seen, there are opportunities there now. The Canadian Meat Council quite correctly pointed out that it has access now, but it does not use it, for a lot of legitimate reasons. The council says that additional access would enhance its ability to go ahead, and its members would probably take advantage of it.

However, if memory serves me right, that industry is looking for about $100 million in transitional costs so that it can move those factories and processors so that they can ship to the EU. The reason is that the EU is looking for red meat that is different. It wants it to be hormone-free and probably without antibiotics, so the meat has to be treated differently when it is processed. Different things have to be dealt with.

The problem ends up being the cost. Does the government intend to move that cost, or will the meat processors simply say that without the money, they will not do it? We do not know. The indirect benefits clearly are to those who say that they will feed those extra cattle, but that will happen only if the producers grow the extra cattle and send the meat down the chain.

In the committee report the barley producers talk about the net benefit to them. The problem is it is indirect, because they will not be selling barley to the EU. That is what the president of the Barley Council said. There is not really a big market for them to sell barley, because the EU has its own, but if we need another 500,000 head of cattle for that market, barley producers will be able to sell to the Canadian primary producers to raise that cap.

To go back to the beginning, if the processors do not develop a new line to take the cattle, then there are no cattle and there is no market for the barley producers. There is opportunity, but it is not a given. Unfortunately, my friend the parliamentary secretary always tells us that this will be so; well, it will not be so. It might be, but maybe not. We could point to other free trade agreements in which a lot of promises were made. Some of them happened.

It is not always the government's fault. We have to be truthful about that. If the opportunity is made available, someone has to take that opportunity. If they do not, then that is their choice. The issue is whether they can get all the things they want, and are we on a level playing field? It remains to be seen.

When we look at this situation, we see there are winners and losers. Some who came before the committee—and my friend did not talk about them—said they were not really sure if they are going to derive a benefit. Horticultural folks came before the committee and said they think they have some opportunities. They might have some winners, but they think they might have some losers too. Doing away with the tariffs is what it is about between the two, so they were wondering if the Dutch would dump all those red bell peppers on us, because right now they have a tariff. What happens if they decide to sell them in the horticultural sector? We will be swamped with bell peppers. We will be done. That is an impact no one in the government has talked about.

There is no transitional funding for the horticultural sector, by the way. At the moment the only reason there is one is that we moved a motion on this side to get Conservatives to talk about the cheese industry, and they finally accepted. There are none of those mitigating factors being taken into account.

On balance, it looks as though there could be opportunities, but perhaps not. No one is suggesting a free trade agreement in which one side wins and the other side loses. There has to be a balance. There is back-and-forth at the bargaining session. I know how it works. For 25 years I have looked across the table at folks trying to bargain collective agreements. We give something and we get something. That is how it works. In good agreements, on balance, we get what we need and they get what they need. When people go away from the table, they are never the happiest people in the world, but they feel they got a deal.

In this case, the EU will still have more agricultural product coming to this market than we will have going there, even when we add all of the new things that the government says will happen and, to be fair, what the ag sector believes it can win.

At the end of the day, we did not catch up, yet by all accounts we are a great agricultural country. We are great producers. We have great processors. We have great folks who market around the world and great products to sell. There are a multitude of things that we do extremely well, but we will still come up short compared to what will happen over there. We will still be in a position of going onto a playing field that we are not really sure is going to be equal.

After the committee adjourned, I had a discussion with one of our friends who appeared before it. He talked about GMOs. He said, “You know, we thought we were going to get that fixed in about four years.” I asked when that was, and he said it was in 1993. He thought that by 1997 or 1998 at the latest, we and Europe would be finished with that issue.

However, he said that what he liked about this agreement was that they are going to get to talk about it.

I said, “Didn't you talk about it in 1993?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “How are you making out?”, and he said, “Well, we're not, yet.” I asked him what makes this any different. He said, “Well, they said there will be an agreement on phytosanitary and all these things would get put to bed.”

I have never heard the government say yet that it has an EU deal that says the EU will take GMOs from us. If there is such a deal, somebody can nod their head in the affirmative over there and correct me. Stand and tell me I have it wrong. If it is true that CETA says the EU will take GMOs tomorrow, please let me know, because I have never heard it. That is not changing.

Our folks were hoping it might, but it did not. What does that mean for producers? It means it is a market they cannot get to unless they change. That is their choice, and that is okay. They can choose to go in that direction or not.

However, as the government says, it is a market of 550 million people that those producers will give up on, so they have to figure out what they want to do. Do they want to look at someone else who would take that particular product?

I make no value judgments with this speech about a GMO product. That is the farmer's decision to use the product. The issue in growing that crop is entirely up to them. At the moment, the market does not take that particular product, so it eliminates it for them unless they switch. Maybe someone from the other side, during questions and comments, will tell me that somehow this is not true and I have it wrong. I will wait to hear if that is the case.

Clearly, for us, we listened to farm groups, farmers and processors, right across the country, of which there were many. On balance, they said that the agreement looked like a good deal for their industry. However, there were some who said it was not necessarily a good deal for them.

We have heard about the supply side and it may not get what it thought it would get. My colleague from Malpeque introduced the sense of how it would be affected. Mr. Wally Smith said that the existing quota today would be 2.25% less after the agreement than before. If the market is not growing in Canada, because it is a closed market for them, and the quota shrinks by that amount, it impacts the ability of farmers and producers to make money, unless the Canadian milk market can swell, but it only grows at a certain level.

The New Democrats, and I am sure members on their side, would encourage folks that if they do not drink a lot of milk, they should. They should drink additional milk products and look for real milk products, not the pretend products, if they want to do things for farmers. It is really all about that.

This is an issue on the supply management side that makes it interesting.

The other part of it is that in my neck of the woods we have the wine industry. When representatives of the industry came before us, they said there was no impact on them. The fact is that wine basically comes into the EU anyway. There is no real import tariff on it. It is a minor amount and it has been reduced for the last number of years. It basically is not there anyway. Most of it is kind of a provincial piece as it is imported into what the taxation regime is. Those people have said that they needed help marketing themselves, because the Canadian wine industry is a small player internationally. Part of that is because we do not have a lot of cultivars in areas where they grow grapes. We have less of it in the ground than in the European nations. That is just the nature of it. Since we are physically smaller player, they said it did not really impact them. In a way there is a bit of an indirect piece that they need.

The representatives did say that the potential was there for them to import equipment in the wine industry. I have always found it unfortunate that we do not have a manufacturer. I am not suggesting the government is at fault for this because it is not. As somebody who grew up in Niagara, I have always wondered why there is not a machine company around the province that makes good wine making equipment for us, rather than having to buy it from Europe all the time. Every time we go to these places, the equipment is usually made in Italy or Germany. I wonder why we do not make it here. We have great machinists and machine operators, so why do we not make the stuff here for our home industry? Maybe that will be an indirect benefit, and it will be an industry that sprouts up. We never know, because it certainly would be one that would be welcome in Niagara, which is a great manufacturing place to be.

As we went through this, we decided we would add a supplementary piece to the agreement that talked about what we would like to have seen as well. We wanted to see that protection for dairy farmers, and we made that motion in the House.

The New Democrats want to thank the government for accepting and supporting the motion, but we also want to ask what it is going to do. We are looking for some action. The Conservatives always suggest that we are inactive about certain things, well we are looking for some action from the other side and it would be nice to see that happen. It is clearly something they have said.

My friend mentioned Mr. James Laws, who is the executive director of the Canadian Meat Council. He was concerned about reciprocity. The reciprocity is on something that is called parma ham or feta cheese. It is a geographical indicator. We gave the Europeans a whole whack of geographical indicators, a whole pile of GIs, but we did not get too many in the deal. They got 20-some odd, which really surprised me because I actually thought they would only get a handful. I thought we would be firm with them and not really allow them to have as many as they got. We got next to none and the one we actually tried to get was maple, which is really a traditional Canadian symbol.

We put a recommendation in our supplementary report, but the government did not answer our recommendations at the back. It answered the other recommendations. It was really surprising that the government would not say it was for maple.

When it gets close to winter when the leaves fall, they are maple leafs. I am not suggesting the hockey team. I am saying it is maple leafs that are falling. For all the Leafs fans out there, I hear they are doing better than normally. One would think that if we are going to protect anything in this country as an icon, it is the maple leaf and maple syrup.

Members of my family who live in Scotland know to buy real maple syrup that comes from Canada. In fact, when they come to visit, we ensure they get some to take home. They say they can buy syrup in Europe, but it is not the real maple syrup. The real syrup that we get in Canada is iconic to our country. I am surprised the government did not say it agreed with that recommendation the New Democrats made as part of our supplementary report.

Clearly, there are some issues that the government has not addressed.

The Canadian Meat Council talked about it when it comes to GIs. It asked where that reciprocity was, where that ability was for us to stand up and ask why the Europeans were given all the ones they wanted. We understand that Europeans want to hang on to these sorts of indicators, that they really like the fact that this comes from a certain region, and they have a real attachment to it, especially when it comes to food products.

As much as we do not have quite the same attachment, one would have thought during bargaining we would have wanted to get something for that. If we were going to give them the GIs, why would we not then ensure they did not get as much cheese? Why did we not get something in return for that? That is what bargaining is about. It is about getting something for giving something. One does not just give stuff away for free. That is not bargaining, that is just giving up. For me, it was a real issue about not fighting to keep the things we need to keep.

On balance, I would be foolhardy to suggest that the folks who went before the agriculture committee did not say they felt there were opportunities here. Some felt there were very direct opportunities and could track it, but they were not really sure. There were some numbers used, some approximates, which were probably close to reality, but others were not. It really is quite often, as they say, not to pick on the pork industry, a bit of a pig in a poke, which is maybe it is and maybe it is not. One has to wait on those things.

Let me end by saying that the parliamentary secretary's amendment earlier I found strange at best, but then again I should never find anything coming from the other side too strange. There is this sense that the bill should be taken back to be re-studied with the additional information, which is actually a good piece. I do not know if subamendments can be made to these things, but I am not even going to try.

The bottom line is that now we have this additional information, maybe we should show the folks who went before the committee and ask them what they think. They may think it is better, they may think it is not so good. Giving an explicit instruction saying thou shall vote this way, means one really supports it. Let the Conservatives bring the bill to the House and then New Democrats will see if we want to support it.

Pierre LemieuxConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but let me just preface a few remarks before I ask the question. I want to remind the House and Canadians that CETA is good for Canadian farmers. We are talking about $1.5 billion for the Canadian agricultural sector that would come about because of CETA. That is a new opportunity.

I would also like to highlight the fact that the NDP represents farmers in some of their ridings, but particularly in Quebec. When I look at Quebec what I see is a very strong and vibrant pork industry, beef industry and crop industry. Just in pork and beef, we are talking about a billion dollars worth of access into Europe because of the free trade agreement.

Now I will get to my question, because I know Quebec pork farmers, and certainly beef and crop farmers will be asking this question themselves. Having listened to my colleague, I could not tell if the NDP is planning to vote for the CETA trade agreement or not. He was saying on the one hand and then on the other hand, but if we go in the middle and go back to the other hand.

We need some clarity, which is why I put the amendment in front of the House in the first place. Everyone wants clarity, particularly farmers. Therefore, could the member clarify this for the House. Will the NDP vote in favour of the Canada-European trade agreement?